[mania]

see http://www.siliconvalley.com/docs/ho...ack/014110.htm

I don't know about you but this smacks of both 1984 and the last book of the Bible. are you one of the 99.99 percent of people who wants this? not me. sure it will be 'voluntary' at first. then mandatory. then stamped on your forehead! evil. eeeeevil!

[Millennium]

Could be. I don't much like the guy myself, though his house just 0wnz

An interesting point: Nostradamus predicted that there would be three "Antichrist" figures. The first of these is now widely held to have been Napoleon. The second, according to accepted theory, was Hitler. But the third is not thought to have come yet, or if he has, no one knows who he is. I don't give Nostradamus much credit myself, but it's something interesting to think about...

[Nile Crocodile]

I like the idea of a card that can protect against identity theft. You have to show ID to get on a plane. You get pulled over by a cop you have to a driver license.

But the idea of having to show "papers" to .. say .. get into Disney World is rather shocking. There's a real chance that this would become a de-facto requirement. Sure it's "voluntary" you just can't do anything without it.

Plus Elston goes overboard. He wants to put everylittle bit of info on it. I'd get a card that protects against identity theft that only had my name and ienough info for people to know that I am me. Nothing more. I don't like giving out my address and phone number. It will just become a tool for marketing.

[Monique]

On the part of Larry Ellison it is a natural reaction to what happened in New York. He loves his country and think that kind of wacky idea is a good one. Anyway he must have talked about it with Steve since on Larry's part they are best friends.

I do not think it is such a bad idea, but are we going to be stopped in the middle of the street or in a store and have to show our ID. And the peole who will be stopped are they going to look like African American, Latino, Asian, Arab or the one who have an accent.

If it is the only way I can live in the United States, I am ready to accept this idea.

Also, someone brouht the possibility of Ellison trying to get richer, well this is very possible.

He is not the Anti-Christ, just a rich guy with too much time on his hands, just like Steve Jobs.

[OldManMac]

Obviously most people don't understand the ramifications of this! They're like a bunch of sheep, just being herded wherever they're told to go! This idea was proposed about 4 years ago (I'd bet that most people don't even know that), and roundly defeated. This time around it is gaining support from such unlikely organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union, which vehemently opposed it last time! This preposterous idea could open the door to all kinds of abuse, and would do nothing to solve any problem. What really amazes is that, before 9/11, everyone was clamoring about how big government was the enemy; now, everybody's screaming for protection from terrorists, and they want the government to protect them! Air marshalls, national ID cards, troops in airports, etc. The problem is, who determines whom these procedures are going to protect, and how far does this go? Are we going to turn into a nation of paranoids, looking for terrorists under every bed? That happened when I was a young child, when we looked for communists under every bed! We are rapidly becoming a police state, and this card will only expedite that; you'll be stopped because you're in the wrong neighborhood, or you're out too late at night, or you won't be able to travel if you lose your card, because the government will take six months to replace it! If this card becomes a reality, we will be subject to horrendous government abuses, and we'll have no one to blame but ourselves. I believe it was Ben Franklin who stated (and I'm paraphrasing here), "He who gives up freedom for security has neither."

Ok, I'm done ranting for now: go back to the real important stuff in your lives, like what size hard drive to put in your Mac!

[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: KarlG ]

[Nile Crocodile]

Originally posted by KarlG:
<STRONG>The problem is, who determines whom these procedures are going to protect, and how far does this go?</STRONG>

Uuummmmm? Last time I checked the Congress does that. And since Ashcroft was almost handed his hat when he was there it's safe to say that they are in control. I expect this National ID card thing to go nowhere fast.

[Nile Crocodile]

Originally posted by Monique:
<STRONG>And the peole who will be stopped are they going to look like African American, Latino, Asian, Arab or the one who have an accent.</STRONG>

You know that for sure huh? Because you say so or because you can predict the future?

[maxelson]

Oh, fer chrissakes. Larry Ellison is NOT the Anti Christ. I am.

[nonhuman]

While there would be some advantages to having a national ID, I, for one, would not carry mine were they to be issued. Hell, I'm starting to wish I could undo my application for a driver's license, and I definitely wish I wasn't registered for social security. Why do they need to know who I am, anyway? I should be free to be as anonymous as I'd like (unless, of course, I were to be convicted of a major crime like murder, or rape or something...).

For the government's part, there should be no assumption of a threat from it's own citizens.

[Arty50]

Originally posted by KarlG:
<STRONG>This time around it is gaining support from such unlikely organizations as the American Civil Liberties Union, which vehemently opposed it last time!
[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: KarlG ]</STRONG>

Read the article, the ACLU is against this still. Also I love the following line:

"Ellison said that if he does donate the software, maintenance and upgrades won't be free."

Gee Larry, don't services and support account for a huge chunk of your company's revenue?

Americans should only be required to have one of two pieces of identification: a birth certificate or naturalization papers (both of which entitle you to a US passport BTW). And we shouldn't have to carry them either. Social Security cards and Drivers Licenses are completely optional items, yet they're not treated as such on a daily basis.

I'm 25, well over the legal drinking age. One of my friends is 29. We both didn't have our drivers licenses the other day when we went in a bar to grab a drink. And the bartender wouldn't serve us. It was ridiculous since neither of us look anywhere near 21 anymore. So we went across the street to another place and it was no problem. I'm 25. It's my right to drink. If I looked 18 I could understand, but this is absolutely ridiculous. What if you're 21 and don't have a drivers license? You can legal drink, but good luck getting served. This is really lame.

Now let's say we institute a national id. The government may not ask for it, but you can be damn sure banks, bars, retail stores, local police officers, etc. will. All for perfectly legal behaviors. I already have enough ids (CA drivers license, US Passport, work id, social security card, etc). What does a national id do that these don't? Absolutely nothing.

So I offer a quote:

"Do they let you drive to Montana?"

"Yes."

"No papers?"

"No papers."

That's what the U.S.A. is all about.

[OldManMac]

quote:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______

Originally posted by Nile Crocodile:
Uuummmmm? Last time I checked the Congress does that. And since Ashcroft was almost handed his hat when he was there it's safe to say that they are in control. I expect this National ID card thing to go nowhere

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______

Uuummmmm? Last time I checked, Congres is rapidly falling in lockstep with the idea. Several prominent people, including Sen. Feinstein, among others, have suddenly decided that this is a great idea.

Our political process works on a very simple principle called "political expediency"; those who bleat the loudest get fed. It isn't always what's good for the people, or what's fair that determines what laws get enacted (ask Oprah how many millions of her own dollars she spent trying to defend herself against the meat industry when she made a comment about beef on TV)! Usually it's the big corporations that get what they want, but right now political expediency dictates that the public be listened to because we're all panicking, so Congress, in it's usual "let's make them feel like we're listening" mode, is jumping on this bandwagon!

As to the comment by Monique, regarding people being pulled over because they look different, it happens every day, so this is a valid concern. Believe it or not, there are people who have power who abuse it! I still hear and see racial slurs on a regular basis. One doesn't need to predict the future; one needs to see what's going on around them.

[Nile Crocodile]

Originally posted by KarlG:
<STRONG>
Uuummmmm? Last time I checked, Congres is rapidly falling in lockstep with the idea.</STRONG>

Ummmmmm? Last time I checked they weren't.

[daimoni]

.

[OldManMac]

I stand corrected on a portion of my statement; I misread the article, and the ACLU does not support this, which is great! What shocks me is that Alan Dershowitz, who has long been a prominent supporter of civil liberties, seems to be so easy to sway!

Does any rational person really think that a national ID card is going to stop some terrorists from achieving their objectives? You have to have a license to carry a gun in most places; does this stop criminals from getting guns illegally? If one wants to circumvent the law to achieve his goal, he will do so! The only people who this idiotic idea will affect are those who are law abiding citizens; they'll just march in lockstep no matter what their government tells them, even if it means they'll have to show papers to travel in their own personal cars from one city or state to another! They'll give up their freedom for absolutely no additional security, because the terrorists or criminals will still be there! So Sad!

It is also easy to discount Gen. Schwartzkopf's statement. Soldiers are trained to spew military doctrine, because they have to be a cohesive fighting unit; as such they have little freedom of speech. I was in the Air Force many years ago, and wrote a letter to President Nixon and the Secretary of the Navy about a seaman who was being court martialed for calling an officer a pig! Totally distasteful, crass, crude, etc., but it didn't justify putting a man in prison! I received a not-so-nice reply stating that I should be careful about what I say! So much for freedom of speech! Scwharzkopf wouldn't feel as if he had so much freedom if he said something that was deemed politically incorrect. Several years ago a General made a comment to the effect that Jews controlled business or the banking system, which was a totally crass and inappropriate statement to make; he was retired very quickly and I believe he was even demoted! So much for freedom of speech! I don't agree with the general who made this statement in any way shape or form, but I would fight to the death for his right to say it. As long as one doesn't advocate or incite violence against another, free speech, no matter how distasteful and ignorant it may seem to others, is paramount.

We're heading down a slippery slope folks!




[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: KarlG ]

[daimoni]

.

[scottiB]

Question:

How many people have, in their wallet or purse or whatever, proof that they are a U.S. citizen (or a citizen of his/her respective country)?

Another question:

Is the ability to prove that on a moment's notice beneficial for national security?

[Rick1138]

We're headed for scary times folks,it seems the enemies of freedom are not only without,but within.This erosion of civil liberties has been going on for some time,sadly.But I am happy to see that at least some people are resisting.

[Nile Crocodile]

Originally posted by daimoni:
<STRONG>

Nobody does, Croc. But you can't erase the past. And each time we try, we're damned to repeat it.

</STRONG>

IMO the reports of racial profiling have been overstated. If you remember it started down south with the highway cops pulling people over. It was known. The cops were trained that way. They did it. Then in New Jersey too. Case closed.

Now the civil rights leaders are getting a great deal if milage out of racial profiling. I'm sure it gets them some fine donations. They'd have you belive that every major minor and middle city in the county is out to get black people. White guilt plays into that notion. Next thing you know everyone "knows" what the police do. Racial profiling is a great way to get the jury to vote your way.

Now we "know" that arabs and mexicans and people who talk funny will be the obvious targets of this that and the other?

[Millennium]

As I've said before, the purpose of the law is not to prevent crime. It is to deal with those who would disobey the law. That might indirectly act as a deterrent; this is a good side effect. But that's all it is: a side effect.

Why is this? Because laws cannot prevent crime. If you try to make a law that says "murder is prohibited" then your law will fail, because such laws only govern those who obey them. For a criminal, it is as though the law does not exist. If you make that law "murder is a crime punishable by &lt;insert sentence here&gt;" then you have something that can actually hace an effect, because rather than trying to mandate or prohibit something, you're setting up a framework whereby society can deal with those who, in this case, kill people.

So when you mandate ID cards, you have no effect on crime whatsoever, because you're using law for something it was not designed to do. Any and all measures which are aimed solely at preventing crime are doomed to this same fate: affecting only law-abiding citizens, and not deterring criminals in the slightest.

And when these same laws let the government spy on innocent people, you have destroyed the very freedom that this nation was created to defend.

[zigzag]

I lean strongly towards privacy and libertarianism (I used to belong to the ACLU), but I'm not prepared to dismiss the idea. I want to learn more about how it might be implemented.

I think the Franklin quote goes something like "Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither." I appreciate the concept in the abstract, but unfortunately, in the real world, freedom and security often go hand in hand. If you're under attack, whether from forces of nature or man, you don't have complete freedom - you're a hostage to the constant threat of violence. You have to provide for safety and security on some level. It's a matter of finding the right balance.

So, the question is, would an ID card be too great an impingement on privacy and liberty? It depends on how it's implemented, of course, but I'm not automatically opposed to a voluntary ID. We like to think that we're not already "ID'd", but as a practical matter, virtually all of us are to some degree. Anyone who drives is required to have a driver's license, which is already used as a crude form of national ID. I don't know if a social security number is required by law, but it appears that everyone has one, and it is also used as a crude form of national ID. Then there are credit cards. Anyway, this doesn't itself justify the concept of a national ID, it's just to say that it's already virtually impossible to function in the modern world without officially-sanctioned ID of some kind. Therefore, a national ID card would not seem to be much of an impingement, if any, in this regard.

The real fear, I think, is not so much the ID aspect, but the possibility that it would be used by the government to track our personal activities. I think this is a valid fear. I don't mind having to show an ID to get somewhere, but I don't want the fact that I've done so to create a trail. Credit cards create a trail of sorts, but I can avoid that by paying cash. For me to accept a national ID card, I would want to know that the system was set up to allow use of the database for ID purposes, but not to create a trail, unless you're a criminal and a court has ordered that you can be tracked. The potential for abuse is obviously there, but I'm willing to be convinced that it could be done in a responsible way.

The idea of a voluntary card removes a lot of potential objections - if we're free to object to it, we should also be free to adopt it on an individual basis. Some people don't mind being tracked, and that's their prerogative. However, it raises the danger that people who opt out will be discriminated against. It may be that the only solution to that particular problem is to make the card mandatory, removing that particular basis for discrimination.

Alan Dershowitz makes an interesting point in this regard - the ID could theoretically reduce discrimination by acting as something of an equalizer. If you have one, there's no reason for the authorities to single you out. Whether this would be true in practice is hard to say. The authorities could still find other excuses to single you out.

I must say that if Alan Dershowitz approves, I have to at least give it some consideration. I don't always like Dershowitz, but it's hard to think of anyone who has a higher regard for civil liberties.

People have mentioned the fear that, say, Disney World might require a national ID card for entry. The problem with that argument is that private enterprises already have the right to refuse entry to anyone they consider a risk. Constitutional liberties don't generally apply to private enterprises.

Maybe the solution is to make the card mandatory for air travel and border crossings only. I could live with that. I'm willing to give up a certain amount of privacy/liberty in order to fly safely and secure our borders. Other businesses could ask to look at your card, but would not have access to the national database, although they would have the right to create their own, as they already do.

I'm definitely in favor of mandatory cards for non-citizens. We're already supposed to be tracking non-citizens, we're just doing a lousy job of it. Restricting and monitoring the activities of non-citizens is a trade-off I'm willing to make.

As for Larry Ellison, I'm sure there's a combination of ego gratification and genuine altruism at work. But I don't think the fact that it's Larry Ellison should itself invalidate the idea.

[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: zigzag ]

[scottiB]

Zig's spot on.

To answer my own question about proving citizenship: only if one carries a voter's registration card or a passport.

Don't know it that's good or bad.

[mania]

thank you for all these thoughtful replies. I am not usually thoughtful but my real fear was echoed by someone talking about drivers license. Sure you don't have to get one but without one you aren't allowed to drive.

suppose they institute this and you elect not to get one of these id cards for whatever reason - political, social, religious, laziness. will that mean (eventually) you won't be albe to fly, apply for a professional job, run for office. Now that is real discrimination.

[Nile Crocodile]

I think it would be okay as long as the USER could control what information to give out.

As a base it would be a photo and a name. Maybe a biometric thingy to "confirm" it. But that would be it. Just a name and a face or finger print just so people know that you are who you say you are.

After that it would be optional. Address? Only if the user allowed it. Phone? Only if the user allowed it. Criminal history.....

The cops may be able to get the criminal history but NO medical records.

Hospital could get medical history but no criminal record.

Your work could get almost nothing unless you allow it and you could refuse at any time.

Let the people control it and have an opt out system.

[scribe]

I hear the argument that a national, voluntary id could reduce racial profiling, but I also wonder if it could increase it. My initial reaction was that minorities would be the only ones who would need to get the ID, because they'd be the only ones of whom it was demanded. I agree that a mandatory ID could be an equalizer, but it being on a voluntary basis doesn't do anything for racial profiling....imagine the difference in reaction between an arab (or whatever hated/feared/mistrusted ethnicity of the moment) who opts not to get an ID, and an average white guy who doesn't have one. I'm no liberal, but I can easily see how people could be discriminated against in that situation.

That said, I'm not in favor of a mandatory ID either. I think the current near-requirement of a driver's license is bad enough. I live in a metro area and don't drive a car, but I ended up getting my driver's license because I got tired of being questioned when I wanted to write a check / buy a beer / get a hotel room / open a bank account...and the list goes on and on. If anything, I'd be more supportive on optional ID cards, issued on a state-by-state basis, that was "government-issued" but contained nothing but your name, picture, and signature, and no database is kept. (I think some states already offer this)

[MacFan]

Ellison is just out to make a buck preying on people's paranoia. Just like US flag sellers are now doing with America's recent surge in Patriotism.

Most won't go for it and those that do will wonder why they did within a very short period of time.

[scottiB]

Michigan has a state identification card.

Many times a picture ID is needed to prevent fraud and to cover the merchant's a$$. A bar needs you to prove that you are the legal drinking age, so it will not lose its liquor license, or be sued when a 19 year old kills himself or others while DUI.

Many store's want a picture ID to verify a check writer's ID. If one doesn't like it, go to an ATM a pull out the cash. Bank's want proof of a permanent address, at the very least, to mail you a monthly statement.

Anyway, if everyone was required to get a passport, no national ID would be necessary. It is one.

[Nile Crocodile]

Originally posted by scottiB:
<STRONG>Michigan has a state identification card.</STRONG>

So does Virginia. (I think most states do) You get it from the DMV and most people refer to it as a "walker's permit". Justa joke.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by zigzag:
<STRONG>I lean strongly towards privacy and libertarianism (I used to belong to the ACLU), but I'm not prepared to dismiss the idea. I want to learn more about how it might be implemented...

... We like to think that we're not already "ID'd", but as a practical matter, virtually all of us are to some degree.</STRONG>

Larry Ellison wrote an article that was published on the editorial page of the WSJ last week. After reading what he has to say I'm much less opposed to the idea than I was.

[OldManMac]

quote:

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________

Originally posted by scottiB:
Michigan has a state identification card.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________

I assume you're talking about the drivers license. Every state has one of those.

[FERRO]

I thought it was a stupid idea the first I heard it....

I mean if you really want to steal someone identity you will succeed!

Besides we already kind of have a national id card - its called a drivers licence.

Now if we could only have "National ID Internet Databases Online with up to date info on all driver licences in every state.... kind of like fingerprint databases, maybe that would be better to just use a ID card already in use, Anyone who doesnt drive is required to obtain a state id....

I am 22 and I dont drive.... I have a state ID.... took me about two minutes to fill out my info and get a picture taken.... two weeks to verify and end me a card in the mail.

problem solved.

but really, if someone really wants to steal someones identity they will.....

[Nile Crocodile]

Originally posted by KarlG:
<STRONG>

I assume you're talking about the drivers license. Every state has one of those.</STRONG>

No he's not. He talking about a state ID card used mostly by people who DO NOT drive. That's why in Virginia it's called the "walker's permit".